this comes from a very good source.  users beware.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On Wed, 24 May 2006 00:58:20 +0100, Concerned <anon@comments.header> wrote:

> this comes from a very good source.  users beware.
>

Good luck decrypting PGP

Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita [url]http://www.x-privat.org/join.php[
/url]

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 23 May 2006 23:58:20 +0000, Concerned wrote:

> this comes from a very good source.  users beware.

Whatever. If one accesses the panta nymserver solely through a mixmaster
chain, then there is no way for the panta admin to possibly know who the
hell is behind the pseudonym. Even if he _were_ the police, which I
highly doubt, what difference does it make?

If you're that convinced that this is a problem, just make sure that
panta is not the first (or to be paranoid, second) remailer in the chain.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A

iD8DBQFEdAZpAu/99yiuvR8RArN+AKDn+MRZT2SA1kvpLT94HsGSa/dbewCfd/ox
OstP4c8yvgsaQ/bgC1VvCxI=
=1Fuj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On Wed, 24 May 2006, Stephen K. Gielda <steve@packetderm.com.bogus> wrote:
>In article <WYNVFSJ938860.8321759259@twistycreek.com>,
>anon@comments.header says... 
>
>Newsflash: Any site or service has to cooperate with the law.  None that
>I know of are more powerful than the government and legal system under
>which they operate and therefore will cooperate either willingly or by
>force if said government or legal system demands.

Bingo! Give that man a cigar.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

TwistyCreek <anon@comments.header> wrote:

> On Wed, 24 May 2006, Stephen K. Gielda <steve@packetderm.com.bogus>
> wrote: 
>
> Bingo! Give that man a cigar.

Are you suggesting that things like recent NSA data mining attempts
are "unavoidable", maybe even "proper" as a matter of some sort of
eminent domain?

"Resistance is futile. Cooperate or be assimilated."
-- Gielda of Borg

<GRIN>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

 iD8DBQFEdIm1no5iexlRIBERA+0OAKConMst89si
jUUvJOdApE25JLWpFACfaqoL
B4VtrIrIG3bO74vRfE3fnbE=
=W1mc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Stephen K. Gielda <steve@packetderm.com.bogus> wrote:

> In article <WYNVFSJ938860.8321759259@twistycreek.com>,
> anon@comments.header says... 
>
> Newsflash: Any site or service has to cooperate with the law.  None
> that I know of are more powerful than the government and legal system
> under which they operate and therefore will cooperate either
> willingly or by force if said government or legal system demands.

Google... Qwest... and a huge list of lesser recognized entities that
have taken a stand for as many different reasons, some actually winning
the day.

One doesn't *have* to cooperate Steve. It's even possible to take the
position of noncooperation and come out smelling like a rose, while
others end up not so pleasantly aromatic. Evidence: the lawsuits being
filed against at least one "cooperator" in the NSA fiasco. Whatever the
outcome, the whole thing leaves a taint on the sheep that blindly
follow wolves in herder's clothing.

It's all a matter of how much you believe in what you're doing and your
willingness to sacrifice. And to some lesser extent how much you know
about the law. For instance, you handed over data to the cops because
you believed it was the "right thing to do". As you tell it I agree
with you, but it could have been a completely different story. You had
a choice at that period in time, and if the scenario had been slightly
different, the user in question righteous, it might have even been to
your ADVANTAGE to refuse to comply. You might have even *broken* the
law by your compliance, strange as it seems.

You did have a sound legal argument in the form of the information they
were looking for having been deleted as a matter of your easily
documented log rotations. Warrants and subpoenas in the US are by law
very specific about the information they target, so it's a fair bet
their request was "incident specific". You simply didn't have what
they were looking for (by your own words), and gave up unrelated or
irrelevant information that some people might suggest you really
shouldn't have.

Of course we don't know precisely what was asked for or given, so this
is all speculation and conjecture. It's really not about you at all to
begin with, it's just an attempt to make a point by engaging in a
little "poetic license" at your expense. ;)

But it *is* truly saddening to see someone who has become a cornerstone
of the privacy community preaching what's in essence nothing more than
"submit or be crushed" defeatist dogma. It suggests the person has
forgotten his basic civics, and the fact that his country of residence
in particular describes dissent, and even defiance or retaliation, as
not only an essential civil right, but a civic duty and even legal
mandate in some cases.

People "have to or will be forced" Steve? I don't buy it, at least
not as something that's chiseled in stone.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFEdIfwno5iexlRIBERA/WMAJ4oLywuT+xvZBYW5g/z0QyZEwV7sQCfbr7G
uD9d4cW81sTKOJZ7CkYCNIw=
=drks
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On 24 May 2006, Sheik Yurbhuti <anon@comments.header> wrote: 
>But it *is* truly saddening to see someone who has become a cornerstone
>of the privacy community preaching what's in essence nothing more than
>"submit or be crushed" defeatist dogma.
>
>

That depends on your point of view.

If you happen to support terrorists, and their insane "let's
murder every human being in the whole free world without mercy"
attitude, then you are supporting those whose ultimate goal is to
"wipe Isreal and America off the map."

As anyone can see, your problem is obvious.  You're in a
lose-lose situation.  At a minimum you're paranoid.  At worst,
well, you can bet that the N.S.A. has already got your
number.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Stephen K. Gielda <steve@packetderm.com.bogus> wrote:
 
>
> If the government decided that google was supporting terrorists and
> pedophiles (the two biggest buzzwords and excuses of the day) and the
> courts ordered google to turn over info after they fought it and lost
> in court and google still refused, what do you think would happen?

I can think of a nearly infinite range of things that "might happen".

I can't dispute the fact that a small subset of those possible
outcomes typically, "do happen".

None of it changes the fact that the US was founded on certain
premises, some outcomes are better than others from our perspective,
occasionally people rise to occasions, and you can't divulge what you
do not know.

> Do you think the government would just shrug their choulders and go
> away then?

Obviously not. But they might shrug their shoulders and impose
penalties while remaining none the wiser. And if it happens enough
times, perhaps things could change. Or not change, if you subscribe to
the diminishing rights theory.

Isn't that what advocacy is, Steve? A stand made in hopes that a
situation would resolve to something better?

<BigSnip>
 
>
> I never denied that you can drag your feet as much as legally
> allowed, we do that.  You challenge as much as can.  I'm also not

You *can* go beyond that. Way beyond it in fact, to the irrational
extreme of OKC/Unibomber retaliation.

You're still asserting that once legal recourse is exhausted the game
is finished, even though you're an advocate of the notion that the law
itself is abused, and potentially even abusive itself. That's an
ultimately contradictory and self defeating argument.

I'm not proposing anything even remotely insane as Ryder Truck activism,
just trying to point out that the laws will likely *never* change if
their bounds aren't stretched beyond the point of "lawlessness". That
unless you do make a stand and willingly sacrifice the situation will
degrade, and your activism is for nothing.

> denying that they can't get something that isn't there.  But the fact
> remains if the government wanted something and the courts ordered it
> and it was still refused then they would just come in and seize
> everything.  There isn't much one can do to stop that.  Recent

The phrase "not much" implies there "is something". 

I used your admitted interaction with the law as an example as much for
the fact that you were right for the way you handled it IMO, as for the
fact that with slight changes in the scenario you could have been
considered wrong.

> history is rife with seized servers and machines.  The government has
> even grabbed servers and let them still function unknown that they
> were actually in control until enough evidence was gathered (re:
> shadowcrew).

Just like one can not divulge what isn't known, it's impossible to
fight a battle you're oblivious to. We were discussing what might
happen when the course *can* be affected. Or so I thought. 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFEdMvkno5iexlRIBERA/ApAJ94OytW6D8atg+VHAHCozyd8DS5wwCgkRRa
yyN5beGvGDAPt9xzLNypWmE=
=fPCm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

>I'll respectfully, but emphatically disagree...



don't bend over for the soap. ;)

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

In article <1Y1VX3NW38861.7636921296@twistycreek.com>,
anon@comments.header says...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: RIPEMD160
>
> Stephen K. Gielda <steve@packetderm.com.bogus> wrote:
> 
>
> I can think of a nearly infinite range of things that "might happen".
>
> I can't dispute the fact that a small subset of those possible
> outcomes typically, "do happen".
>
> None of it changes the fact that the US was founded on certain
> premises, some outcomes are better than others from our perspective,
> occasionally people rise to occasions, and you can't divulge what you
> do not know.
> 
>
> Obviously not. But they might shrug their shoulders and impose
> penalties while remaining none the wiser. And if it happens enough
> times, perhaps things could change. Or not change, if you subscribe to
> the diminishing rights theory.
>
> Isn't that what advocacy is, Steve? A stand made in hopes that a
> situation would resolve to something better?
>
> <BigSnip>
> 
>
> You *can* go beyond that. Way beyond it in fact, to the irrational
> extreme of OKC/Unibomber retaliation.
>
> You're still asserting that once legal recourse is exhausted the game
> is finished, even though you're an advocate of the notion that the law
> itself is abused, and potentially even abusive itself. That's an
> ultimately contradictory and self defeating argument.
>
> I'm not proposing anything even remotely insane as Ryder Truck activism,
> just trying to point out that the laws will likely *never* change if
> their bounds aren't stretched beyond the point of "lawlessness". That
> unless you do make a stand and willingly sacrifice the situation will
> degrade, and your activism is for nothing.
> 
>
> The phrase "not much" implies there "is something". 
>
> I used your admitted interaction with the law as an example as much for
> the fact that you were right for the way you handled it IMO, as for the
> fact that with slight changes in the scenario you could have been
> considered wrong.
> 
>
> Just like one can not divulge what isn't known, it's impossible to
> fight a battle you're oblivious to. We were discussing what might
> happen when the course *can* be affected. Or so I thought. 
>

Actually the topic was "cooperates with the law" and my only point is
that one may not willfully cooperate but one can be forced to.  The
tagents to this you are setting up I don't disagree with.

/steve
--
Cotse.Net Privacy Service
Advanced e-mail, ssh, proxies, web hosting, and more.
Your Shield From The Internet
http://www.cotse.net

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]